This afternoon, the blog passed 12,000,000 all-time hits. While still smaller than some of other sites in the top ten legal blogs, we just passed 11,000,000 not long ago and we have continued to grow. I am very proud of our community and our attempt to offer a place for civil and responsible conversation. I encourage our regulars and visitors to continue to avoid the personal attacks and name calling common elsewhere on the Internet.
The continued growth of the site shows that our approach to blogging resonates with a good number of people. I continue to be concerned in reading comments that take personal shots and use insulting language. I hope that the recent debate over civility in legal blogging will reaffirm the need of our regulars to avoid insults and personal jabs. If you do not like a person’s take on a story, there is no need to characterize the writer or the writer’s motivations. Let’s deal with the ideas and leave the ad hominem attacks to other sites.
Thanks again for making the site such a great success.
Here are the list of countries represented by viewers and commentators on the blog with the first being obviously the most prevalent:
Country Views
United States
Canada
United Kingdom
Germany
Sweden
France
Australia
India
Philippines
Ireland
Singapore
Jonathan Turley
One day he might be, “Buddha is Laughing”, another day, “Slartibartfast”,
——————————-
Slartibartfast is Buddha is Laughing???????????!
anon,
As I understand the law (and as I am among the least here in that regard, someone please correct me if I’m wrong…), for an offense to be justicable (is that even a word?) there needs to be a victim who suffered particularized damage, credible evidence of the commission of a crime, and desired redress that is within the power of the court to grant.
In your case, you have no victim, no evidence*, and nothing but some vague whining (and pathetic pleas for attention) in place of a request for redress. What is the point of all of your childish squalling? It’s just a tale told by an idiot–full of sound and fury, signifying nought.
On the other hand, on this very thread, you have libeled me multiple times using my real name (I don’t think that I can be considered a public figure, either).
To cite two specific examples:
In your comment at 12:17pm you said the following in response to a third party’s question about sock puppets:
This was obviously an attempt to bias this person (and this community in general) against me–using my real name rather than my on-line pseudonym “Slartibartfast”–and you used multiple falsehoods to do it.
First, the only reason you know about different pseudonyms that I’ve used is because I have immediately identified myself (although I hardly think anyone was fooled by Paully (really Slart in disguise) or One more completely different and unrelated fan of Buddha’s and you were the only one stupid enough to fall for ??????**). The only identity I hid (for a while) was one I created so that I could participate without being stalked–not that it really matters as you have consistently made it clear that I am to be held to a higher standard than anyone else…
Second, my forays into alternate identities have been for the purpose of informing and demonstrating what was and could be going on. I didn’t even misdirect you–I just asked a question as ?????? which you felt the need to respond to by libeling me.
Third, I have never (and would never) comment as Buddha is Laughing, but if he were still around I’d suggest he change his handle to Buddha is Laughing at anon whenever responding to you.
Finally, I have no idea what you are talking about regarding Crohn’s Face” as not only have I never used that handle, but it is not one of the 13,681 handles that have been used on this site. Are you just making shit up to try and smear me?
In another comment this afternoon you said:
Here you implicitly accused me of obtaining private information–an allegation which you continue to repeat against myself and others despite having no evidence whatsoever. And you did so using my name rather than the pseudonym I choose to go by in this community–what’s up with that “anon“? Why do I not seem to enjoy any privacy rights while everyone else is protected (except from corporations–they’re free to violate anyone’s privacy they want [as long as they’re doing it to make a profit, I guess…])
So why don’t you do some thinking about who has the better case that their privacy is being attacked and their good name is being smeared, okay? Because while it isn’t hard to convince everyone that you are a hypocritical, lying, idiot who is out to smear me, I would prefer that you didn’t make false accusations against me in the first place.
* You base you claims entirely on your willful misinterpretation of what I’ve said while simultaneously asserting that my word can’t be trusted. In my mind, that makes you a stupid hypocrite.
** An identity I used after you made a veiled reference in order to get you to make your false allegations so I could refute them. You are such a predictable shmuck…
leejcaroll,
They say you can know someone by their enemies–I hope you can forgive me for having an enemy as hopelessly incompetent as anon…
Blah blah blah.
As I have noted, you are making accusations without proof. That your excuse is “I don’t have access to proof” is not material to you not meeting your burden of proof. It just shows the baselessness of your accusations.
The matter with Dr. Kesseler was addressed by our host and that you disagree with how it was addressed is irrelevant.
If you don’t like the policies here, you are free to stop coming here.
“anon,
Gene is correct that you may be thinking of the episode where my “name” was used to claim that I had done something improper. That was an untrue smear and I have done nothing to bring dishonor to this site.”
Thank you rafflaw, and I accept that. Actually rereading that train wreck of a thread on the 2nd amendment, just now, I thought it may have been Mike’s name that was bogusly used in that attack. So I appreciate your clarification.
OS, MS, Gene,
I have made no charges.
The charges were made here.
“http://jonathanturley.org/2011/09/25/second-amendment-boogey-man”
The charges were never refuted.
The charges have been denied.
I have not shifted the burden of proof, I have asked what are these charges about?
You keep defending Kesseler’s acts and claim all of this has been proven.
What has actually happened is I have asked Kesseler to show his code, and delete his database, and he has refused.
What has actually happened is I have investigated his method and provided the bug reports at wordpress and other places discussing this privacy invasion.
What has actually happened is I have given advice to Kesseler on how to become a white knight in this. And where the appropriate places are to conduct his privacy and security research is.
As I have noted, I do not have access to server logs, email logs, or the participants to investigate this.
As I have noted, it’s shocking that this would occur at this particular blog, and in the corrections, Dr. Kesseler notes that Professor Turley has admonished him over this and it seems, included Gene and Mike in that email exchange:
http://jonathanturley.org/corrections/#comment-378229
In an email exchange during the events last fall (which included all of the guest bloggers), Professor Turley expressed his disappointment in my actions.
As I have noted, it’s shameful that you three would defend Kesseler and not ask, “how was I caught up in this?”
You guys basically know you were totally in the wrong on this, you have been totally in the wrong on this, and yet you still insist on defending Kesseler and somehow blaming me.
I mean really, it says a lot.
There are some deep questions here that you need to be asking of yourselves.
anon,
Gene is correct that you may be thinking of the episode where my “name” was used to claim that I had done something improper. That was an untrue smear and I have done nothing to bring dishonor to this site.
And who could possibly benefit from a tactic of obfuscation? Someone who knows their accusations are absent evidence and without merit? Paid propaganda trolls or those with a personal axe to grind perhaps after having been on the pointy end of the legal system?
Interesting.
Addnote: What Gene said. Latin and all.
You made a claim that someone talked out of school. Where is the proof of that claim? Link to the claimed statement or STFU. This is getting tiresome.
As for finding out about people on the internet, that is not at all hard given enough determination, skill set and the right connections. Dr. K does not need help or advice from anyone here. He is a grown man, a scientist and if anyone has a beef with him personally, take it up with him. He has made his personal contact information available, so there is no need to clutter up Professor Turley’s law blog with baseless accusations.
“It’s not up to a commenter without access to the server logs, or access to emails or ability to interview the various participants to prove anything.”
Logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit – the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges. You make the accusations, you bear the burden of proof.
The corollary to this is the benefit of assumption which rides with the accused until your requirement to meet the burden of proof is satisfied.
This is indeed a put up or shut up situation.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Link(s) please? This is one of those “put up or shut up” situations.”
No it’s not. Don’t be a dope.
It’s common knowledge that Dr. Kevin Kesseler did something that most websites and blog owners would find abhorrent.
Precisely what he did has never been investigated or reported on by an independent third party or Professor Turley.
It’s not up to a commenter without access to the server logs, or access to emails or ability to interview the various participants to prove anything.
What I have shown is that reasonable people in the software and security industry consider Dr. Kesseler’s actions to be an exploit of a WordPress Privacy leak.
What we all know is his actions were unauthorized, but precisely what those were we don’t know.
We do know Kesseler refuses to release his code or destroy his database.
And we know a bunch of stooges like you and Gene defend Kesseler’s behavior.
What is AMAZING is that Gene is an attorney and somehow guided/restricted in his actions as a representative of the court. And similar with you, testifying repeatedly as an expert witness in front of a court, and here, justifying and defending the never inspected privacy invasions of Dr. Kesseler.
How anyone could read you and Gene’s account and then have any trust in the courts and courtroom processes you participate in is beyond me.
“We’ve heard (I think) that access to confidential WordPress/Turley blog databases was provided.”
Too bad thinking isn’t your strong suit. No access to WordPress databases was provided to Dr. Kesseler. He does not now or has he ever had administrative access to the account for this blog and no one with that access has aided him in any way. Again: he used data obtained from the publicly displayed Gravatar data that anyone with the skills to extract it could use. Public. Data. In any event, no crime has taken place, no one has had their true identity exposed who wishes to post anonymously, nor has any blog policy been violated (and even if it were, you’d have no say in the outcome).
If you have an issue with Dr. Kesseler, I suggest you take it up with him. As to your evaluation of my ethics? I really don’t care what you think. You are entitled to your opinion, but it carries no weight with either me or anyone else of import. However, if you think you can bring suit successfully against Dr. Kesseler without proving any harm? Good luck surviving the prelims.
You are simply engaging in unfounded and unprovable mudslinging in furtherance of your agenda against this blog and its contributors.
Hey Kev,
You have to know how entertaining I find all this. 😉
Anon,
Your charges were refuted time and again. Rather than answer Kevin’ refutation point by point you have persistently ignored it and continued to make the same assertions in a use of “The Big Lie” technique. It doen’t stick because nobody cares. As far as me disliking you for your anonymity that is also another example of lying. My issue with you is your constant demeaning of women and always has been. The issue came up with you a while back when you challenged me to cite specific misogynistic quotes you. At the time I was still recovering from my illness and not wanting to do the research demurred. Other female regulars then supplied the quotes proving your misogyny. Now part of the problem with your sobriquet Anon. It is so generic anyone can use it. I don’t know this for a fact but at times you post in the manner of a different person, so I don’t even know if it’s you.
******************************
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Link(s) please? This is one of those “put up or shut up” situations.
“Not really, not in terms of privacy violations committed in cyberspace.”
And your law degree is from where exactly? Illustrate with admissible evidence that anyone’s privacy in the form of the right to anonymous political free speech has been violated. And even if you could (and you can’t), it’s still not a crime. As a blog, commentators are subject to the policies – including those revolving around the ability to post anonymously – set by the blog owner(s). Again, no crime or violation of blog policy on this issue has happened. If you don’t like the policies applied to comments here? You are free to leave at any time.
“At other times, the victim tells of why she believes she is victim of a crime, and the police and DA do the rest.”
And they only “do the rest” if harm – either in the form of personal harm as required in the case of malum in se crimes or a statutory violation as in malum prohibitum crimes – is found and a causal connection to the accused can be established with evidence sufficient enough to meet the prosecutorial burden of proof in bringing charges to trial.
“I’m glad to hear that. I recall reading one of the guest bloggers gave Dr. Kesseler the WordPress email addresses that commenters enter into the forms. That wasn’t you? Who was it?”
Still hard of reading and understanding I see. To wit:
“2) Nope. I haven’t programmed any substantive code in 25 years let alone contributed to Kesseler’s project. He did what he did, by his own admission, on his own and without any assistance from either our host, rafflaw, myself or any of the other guest bloggers.”
No one from this blog assisted Dr. Kesseler in any way, shape or form. What you recall reading was an unfounded, unsubstantiated and unproven accusation made by some anonymous Internet troll against rafflaw and during the course of addressing the matter found to be completely without merit. I’ll say it again so there is no misunderstanding: No one from this blog assisted Dr. Kesseler in any way, shape or form.
“At other times, the victim tells of why she believes she is victim of a crime, and the police and DA do the rest.”
I of course have no access to the server logs, or Dr. Kevin Kesseler’s hacking code or his databases. I have no ability to interview you or Kesseler or any of the other guest bloggers.
I’ve established that Kesseler exploited a privacy hole. We’ve heard (I think) that access to confidential WordPress/Turley blog databases was provided.
I find it telling about your judgment or ethics you believe I would need to establish more prior to there being some more formal investigation by people that would have that access or could even audit the database that Kesseler refuses to delete.
““In our society, it is rare to ask the victim for proof he was a victim of a criminal that refuses to release full details (including code) of his crime, and refuses to delete the ill gotten goods (his database) or the tools (his code).”
In our society, it is common to ask an alleged victim for proof of harm before assigning guilt to an alleged criminal.”
Not really, not in terms of privacy violations committed in cyberspace.
At other times, the victim tells of why she believes she is victim of a crime, and the police and DA do the rest.
By Dr. Kesseler’s admission it’s pretty clear there is plenty of reason for an investigation. And in cyberspace or even at corporations its common to appoint third parties to investigate and then release the specific details of the incident.
I think you understand that.
“1) None. The way it was explained to me is that all data Dr. Kesseler obtained is freely available to anyone with the skills to extract it from the publicly presented Gravatar data.”
I’m glad to hear that. I recall reading one of the guest bloggers gave Dr. Kesseler the WordPress email addresses that commenters enter into the forms. That wasn’t you? Who was it?
“In our society, it is rare to ask the victim for proof he was a victim of a criminal that refuses to release full details (including code) of his crime, and refuses to delete the ill gotten goods (his database) or the tools (his code).”
In our society, it is common to ask an alleged victim for proof of harm before assigning guilt to an alleged criminal.
“I have established quite well that he exploited what many privacy groups consider to be a WordPress privacy leak.”
You didn’t establish squat. Kesseler admitted to what data he used and made the valid case that what you see as a privacy leak, Gravatar sees as an integral part of their business model. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take Gravatar to court. Good luck with that.
“It’s my understanding that it’s also not always required to identify actual victims when a criminal breaks a law.”
Only if a crime is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. The action you attribute (wrongly) to Kesseler is neither. He broke no laws. The right to anonymous political free speech is recognized by the courts, but here it is simply blog policy and as such any violation of that policy and consequences of violating that policy would ultimately rest with the host. Since Kesseler has explained what he did privately to the host as well as publicly and he has not been blacklisted for violating blog policy illustrates that he has not been found in violation of blog policy. That you may disagree with that ruling is immaterial. You have no say in the matter unless you can point to specific damages by where Kesseler has revealed your (or anyone else’s) true identity publicly in this forum. If you have such evidence, I urge you to bring it to JT’s attention in the proper manner. Since you have not despite several requests to prove damages and can not because no one was harmed, that is a moot point, and we are back to your objections being immaterial and irrelevant. There was no crime, there were no victims and there were no violations of blog policy. Exposing a methodology is not the equivalent of exposing an anonymous poster’s true identity. If that presents a problem for you, it is your problem.
As to your final questions?
1) None. The way it was explained to me is that all data Dr. Kesseler obtained is freely available to anyone with the skills to extract it from the publicly presented Gravatar data.
2) Nope. I haven’t programmed any substantive code in 25 years let alone contributed to Kesseler’s project. He did what he did, by his own admission, on his own and without any assistance from either our host, rafflaw, myself or any of the other guest bloggers.
You, however, are pushing your luck in continuing down this path.
But I never interrupt an enemy in the midst of committing an error.
“Yet you, anon, persist in trying to find out the real identity of anonymous posters through (weak) intimidation, slander (of actual people using their actual identities), and disruption.”
I have not tried to find out anyone’s real identity.
“You have no proof anyone was harmed by Kesseler’s actions.”
In our society, it is rare to ask the victim for proof he was a victim of a criminal that refuses to release full details (including code) of his crime, and refuses to delete the ill gotten goods (his database) or the tools (his code).
I have established quite well that he exploited what many privacy groups consider to be a WordPress privacy leak.
It’s my understanding that it’s also not always required to identify actual victims when a criminal breaks a law.
But you’re the one that purports to be a lawyer, so I defer that to you.
You can determine for yourself if you believe his behavior violated normal online norms or the norms at this blog of a civil libertarian.
What was your role in providing Dr. Kesseler with the private information here again? Were you part of that Gene?
You have no proof anyone was harmed by Kesseler’s actions. You have been asked to present said proof on numerous occasions and yet no proof of damages has been forthcoming. No one’s identity was compromised by Kesseler’s actions, only their methodology. This has been established both privately and publicly by Kesseler’s own disclosures. Yet you, anon, persist in trying to find out the real identity of anonymous posters through (weak) intimidation, slander (of actual people using their actual identities), and disruption.
Also interesting.